User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 11

WP:No personal attacks
Hi. I'm sorry for apparently upsetting you. You've acknowledged my WP:Good faith. Thank you for that. However, there are these characterizations about me which WP prohibits. I would appreciate it if you WP:Refactored them accordingly. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop posting on my talk page. I'm not interested in engaging in debate. I just wish (probably in vain) that you would go away. As for personal attacks, I tell like it is. If you don't like, you can always make a complaint. --Loremaster (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Section break
I accidentally removed the section break, but it changes the meaning of my edits, and should not be done, even on your own talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You may delete (or manually archive) the section, but you may not change the context of other editors' comments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm following this WP:Refactoring. I suggests you read it carefully. You've been here since 2005. I'm here since 2006. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It changed the meaning of my comments in context, as the some of the "nonsense" you were adding was some of the same edits that I reverted and requested you stop making. If you let me rephrase (including the term "nonsense") in my new comment, it might be acceptable.   — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We can always do that later. Let me first respond to your specific points. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I see your correcting yourself. So I'll wait to understand what your points are. --Ludvikus (talk)00:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) If you're done, what's wrong with "Main" New world order or


 * (2) "Main" Brave New World?


 * --Ludvikus (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) New world order is referring to a real concept; the etymology of the conspiracy theory is not related to the reality of the concept.  might be appropriate.


 * (2) The novel Brave New World is also not the subject of the conspiracy theory, although it has some concepts in common. (In fact, the section heading is probably entirely incorrect.)   is still clearly inappropriate.


 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just checked the WP:Diff: . It shows that your completely mistaken on the first two items. T haven't yet checked the other two issues. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Here you're also completely mistaken:
 * 3. The style is intended to establish a chronology - extremely important to understand the development of the conspiracy theory/ies at issue. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 4. How you can say that the fact that until 1920 The Protocols did not "exist" (in the West) is irrelevant to the NWO, is beyond my means to comprehend. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest you contact WP:3O, except that you are alone against at least two active editors at the present time. Suffice it to say that I think you are completely wrong, and your doing things that you considered correct that other editors considered completely wrong led to at least some of your blocks.  I will ask for reconsideration of your unblock unless you can explain why you think you can edit collaboratively.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Simple - until you came on the seen,
 * it was effectively only one against one.
 * But since you're now present,
 * I have no choice but to do what the two of you want.
 * That's WP policy.
 * All you have to do is let me know that the two of you concur on a point.
 * I have no problem with that at all.
 * I hope you understand that?
 * Your "threat" to get me banned is an un-necessary provocation.
 * But I've learned to tolerate that at Wikpedia.
 * But so far I do not see a Consensus on your specific complaint here posted.
 * But I will give you the benefit of the doubt that the other editor agrees with you.
 * But I wish you would not jump to conclusions about the relevance of my Wikipedia past.
 * I happen to be extremely intelligent.
 * So I've learned a lot about Wikipedia culture since 2006.
 * Let me tell it to you again - to make sure you understand me - all you have to do is show me that another editor agrees with you,
 * and you'll instantly get what you want from me at Wikipedia.
 * And that's because Consensuss is perhaps the most important rule at Wikipedia. The End.
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ludvikus you proposed in your
 * unblocking request that
 * "I have learned how to avoid being blocked in the future.(2) I understand now 100% how to avoid it - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor.",
 * yet now by you own admission
 * "Simple - until you came on the seen, it was effectively only one against one.",
 * you seem to be saying that you are no longer going to keep to
 * "ANY confrontation with any other editor"''
 * but move the goal posts to
 * "ANY confrontation with 2 or more editors".
 * Is that what you intended to say to Arthur Rubin or did I misunderstand you? -- PBS (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Explanation 1: "One against one" means that there's NO Consensus. Now please the above of your violation of   . And please STOP your    of me. It's quite un-necessary. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Explanation 2: I did not Create a New WP: rule: "WP:Confrontation": "You must instantly agree with what any other editor tells you. A failure to do so constitutes a Confrontation." --Ludvikus (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of WikiProject/New World Order/Neutral lede

 * (1) WikiProject/New World Order/Neutral lede, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion.
 * Your opinions on the matter are welcome;
 * please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject/New World Order/Neutral lede
 * and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).
 * You are free to edit the content of WikiProject/New World Order/Neutral lede during the discussion
 * but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion.
 * Thank you.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (2) I have speedy deleted the page under G8 see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject/New World Order/Neutral lede.
 * User:Ludvikus what where you thinking?
 * It was this type of behaviour where people had to spend a lot of time cleaning up after you
 * that helped to get you blocked last time.
 * I have to say you are not helping your point that you put forward when you were
 * unblocked that
 * "I have absolutely no interests in any confrontations at Wikipedia which would lead to a "block" - so there's really no need to block me any longer."
 * -- PBS (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (3) Explanation 1:: Now we have here (on the issue of deleting the WikiProject) "Two against one".
 * So there's a consensus!
 * I know what I have to do. Now please Cleanup this Section of your violation of  .
 * And please STOP your violation of the rule against Wikihounding.


 * Question: I started a WikiProject and you deleted it. How much time did that take you?


 * Comment: You are not my parent, or my schoolteacher!
 * Your query above is provocative, inflammatory, and extremely disruptive to me.
 * This is an excellent example of what causes.
 * But I will not allow myself to be Bullied or Confronted by this kind of Clear and Obvious violations prohibited Wikipedia conduct.
 * As User:Jimbo Wales has said, WP:Administrators are just editors like any other, except that they have special privileges.
 * You should not act like Big Bother watching my every move, hounding me, and checking out if I misbehaved.
 * The only one who's being WP:Disruptive at the moment is you.
 * If you are not put in your proper place by other Administrators - so much the worse for Wikipedia.
 * In the alternative, I suggest you WP:Refactor your Personal Attack on me.
 * And I will do the same regarding my remarks, and what's by gone will be by gone.


 * Question: Are you willing to drop your initiated Confrontation and provocation?
 * If so, I'll forget all about it (if you do the same).
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject/New World Order/Neutral lede

 * Hi. I'd like you to add your name to the list within the Wiki Project article above since I'm aware of your very strong interest in this subject. And I do sincerely desire to find common ground with you. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * $%?* YOU! --Loremaster (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it might be a good idea if it meant you would seek consensus before adding nonsense to the article, but it's clear that's not the case. The next step is requesting reconsideration of your unblock.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop. Adding dates to section headers is questionable, at best, but I probably would have let it go if you hadn't gone on to damage the article further.  Adding of incorrect main templates is just wrong, and shows that you are incapable at the present time of constructively editing Wikipedia.  If you don't understand why  and  are inappropriate, you need to ask before making any edits.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about? You Reverted, so please explain yourself. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * : The NWO (ct) section was referring to yet another concept, not related to that article (nor the one you actually pointed to.)
 * The NWO (ct) section was not referring to the book, but to a related concept. (And declaring a minor edit appears to be an attempt to hide the significance of your edits.)
 * There seems no reason to include dates in section headings, although that is more a matter of style. As I said, I wouldn't have reverted that except for the other edits.
 * The publication and/or transmittal history of The Protocols of Zion is not relevant to NWO (ct), even if the book and conspiracy theory are relevant.
 * And this discussion should have been at the article talk page. As you are being reverted by 3 active editors, WP:CONSENSUS suggests you should discuss your changes before making them.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your analysis is inaccurate. The Reversion was simply by you on one issue. And a Reversion by another on another issue. I'm not a mind reader, so I cannot anticipate who will Revert my Good faith editing. You are also completely inaccurate in Citing the Consensus rule to me - I always seek Consensus. Your implication that I effectively "seek" permission for every minor editing I make, is simply wrong. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, since most of your edits have been reverted, perhaps you should seek consensus before making edits. If you could find someone to agree with you, it might appear that you're being constructive.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: I don't know what you're talking about. The very Instant two(2) editors sought that this WikiProject be closed, I followed their Consensus. What exactly is your issue of concern? Be specific so that I may address it. Thank you? --Ludvikus (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: I also left a message on your Talk page: . --Ludvikus (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I prefer to keep threaded conversations in one place.
 * Although the matter described in the section title is closed, your last two messages in this thread indicate you clearly fail to understand the word "consesnus", either in the English language, or as used on Wikipedia, so it wouldn't be honest on my part not to let you know.
 * I'm sorry I misunderstood the question you left on my talk page. I'll go back and edit my answer.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Question:: Don't be sorry. Just do your duty as an Administrator. If I don't understand the meaning of Consensus explain it to me exactly as it applies in this situation. What you are saying to me now is totally useless. My understanding of "consensus" at Wikipedia is conform to the majority of the editors on an issue. As regards my understanding of the English language now characterized as inadequate by you, that's merely a Personal Attack on me. And since you're an Administrator at Wikipedia, it is you who should know that better than I. So you have my permission to WP:Refactor that remark of yours out of my Talk page - because it only makes You look Bad, not me. After that please inform me how I should interpret "consensus" according to you. Let me again remind you what Jimbo Wales has effectively said - that Administrators are editors with special privileges. And you should not make my experience at Wikipedia particularly miserable just because you are an Administrator. So let's start all over again, come to an understanding, and I'll Archive this page so that your Wikipedia reputation remains intact. I sincerely want to work with you. But you must stop provoking me into a Confrontation with you. I promised myself I will not Confront another. So stop backing me into a corner, and let me do my job. Do you understand me now? --Ludvikus (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the essay What is consensus? might be relevant.
 * (unindent)
 * 1) WP:CONSENSUS states specificatlly that:
 * 2) *One editor can create a consensus, if he makes a change and it is not reverted or argued against, and
 * 3) What is consensus? states:
 * 4) *"Consensus is not a majority vote. Every opinion counts. Consensus accounts for dissent and addresses it, although it does not always accommodate it. An option preferred by 51% of people is generally not enough for consensus. An option that is narrowly preferred is almost never consensus."

My interpretation of these is that counting editors is not productive; weighing their opinions (as they reflect Wikipedia policies and guidelines) is. Frequently, in WP:Articles for deletion discussions, the nominator may be the only one argueing for deletion, but his/her opinion may constitute a consensus, as none of the other arguments are relevant.

Could you explain, in a separate section, why you were blocked and what you agreed to in order to be unblocked? This is not a demand or condition; I believe that open discussion of your agreement would reduce the possibility of your being blocked due to a misunderstanding of your unblock conditions. If they are written out where any reviewing administrator could see them, we could get any misunderstandings dealt with before you're blocked for an apparent violation. (As an aside, my understanding is that disucssing those conditions does not constitute a violation of WP:AGF. If you feel otherwise, you may comment on WP:ANI or WP:WQA to determine the consensus.  Please let me know what forum you choose to discuss my actions, so I can have an opportunity to respond.)

And I should add that I may not block you (except possibly for blatent vandalism, which I do not expect to be a problem), as I'm an involved administrator. I would have to contact the blocking or unblocking administrator, or bring up the matter at a user conduct WP:RFC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. You're beginning to indicate a good faith attempt here at some kind of understanding with me, so I'll try to oblige you as best I can.
 * 1) I first got in trouble at Wikipedia over the article Philosophy. I did not then understand that being objectively correct was not how Wikipedia works. So somehow I was Banned, or Blocked, (I still don't no the difference. I subsequently learned that "getting along" was extremely important. But at the time I also did not know how to avoid being provoked by insults and humiliations. That I think I'm better at now. The number one rule is - don't do to them what they are doing to you.
 * 2) Now the second time I got in trouble involved On the Jewish Question. There I alienated not merely the substantial contributor to the article, but I didn't fully understand what he could do to me merely because he also happened to be an Administrator. But because there was nothing specific I had done wrong, he Banned/Blocked me for two years for being "disruptive." What he did is basically make reference to my previous conduct at philosophy. So I really didn't know how exactly I was "disruptive." I do recall that he threaded me first, and I think I irritated him. So he "banned" me for two-years.
 * 3) To make I long story short, I eventually, I think after about 1 1/2 years I asked to be un-blocked. In my un-block I promised that I understood the need not to "Confront" another editor. And a nice Administrator accepted that and terminated my Block/Ban about seven (7) months before expiration.
 * 4) When I returned I simply avoided the articles that related to the Administrators involved in the B/B: I avoided Philosophy, and I avoided On the Jewish Question.
 * 5) However, I had no idea that I should be also extremely careful with historical revisionism. I think the mistake I made there was not fully appreciate that my editing might appear like a POV Fork by the editor who was also an Administrator. Unfortunately, I was not able to convince the Editor who is still Restricting me from even participating on Talk pages of said articles that I had made a good faith mistake at worst. But for the time being I accept his nine (9) restrictions 100%.
 * 6) I do not believe a heated, but civil and polite debate over subject matter constitutes a "Confrontation."
 * 7) So now I've impose a 1R rule on myself.
 * 8) I also make sure that no editing of mine looks remotely like a POV Fork, or any kind of Fork, though I do not yet know the distinction. But it doesn't matter. I know what a Fork in general is - and I avoid that.
 * 9) I also am extremely careful not to insult anyone, ever, no matter how provoked I feel.
 * 10) What I do do (nice pun from a Mel Brooks film) is attempt to stop the Personal Attack when it occurs and distracts me from the discourse at hand. I only pursue it when it affects the meaning on a page which another might misunderstand. Now I have to go. There are more points - but I'll try to get back to them later.
 * 11) I am partly answering you because, for the sake of Wikipedia, I want to learn how to get along with you.
 * 12) Hope this answers some of your concerns. I may need to clarify things better.
 * 13) You're more than welcome to come here anytime and express any concern, and I shall try my best to oblige you.
 * 14) Please excuse any grammar errors - I'm rushed and I haven't had a chance to make corrections.
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

-    Hi. I'd like you to add your name to the list within the Wiki Project article above since I'm aware of your very strong interest in this subject. And I do sincerely desire to find common ground with you. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC) $%?* YOU! --Loremaster (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Well, it might be a good idea if it meant you would seek consensus before adding nonsense to the article, but it's clear that's not the case. The next step is requesting reconsideration of your unblock. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Stop. Adding dates to section headers is questionable, at best, but I probably would have let it go if you hadn't gone on to damage the article further. Adding of incorrect main templates is just wrong, and shows that you are incapable at the present time of constructively editing Wikipedia. If you don't understand why and  are inappropriate, you need to ask before making any edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Executive summary" of the above by User:Ludvikus:


 * 1) User:Ludvikus made a WP:Good faith request for participation in WikiProject/New World Order/Neutral lede.
 * 2) *Answer by User:Loremaster: "*$%?* YOU!" = "Fuck you.
 * 3) *Answer by Administrator User:Arthur Rubin: "seek consensus before adding nonsense to the article" [Ludvikus says:
 * (1) To the extent Consensus was relevant, there was Consensus.
 * (2) What was or was not "nonsense" I cannot figure out.
 * One cannot expect a WP:Good faith User to be able to decide what is "nonsense" regarding her/his own work.
 * And the word "nonsense" in this context is extremely disruptive.
 * At the same time, no user should ask anyone for Consensus to add "nonsense" to ANY article.
 * (3) And the inappropriate threat "The next step is requesting reconsideration of your unblock" is extremely disruptive.
 * It clearly indicates the lack of WP:Good faith by an Administrator who lacks neutrality because he substantially participated in the New World Order set of articles.
 * In addition, User Loremaster left a message on the Talk page of Arthur Rubin flagging this article apparently because Arthur Rubin would flip the Consensus in favor of Loremaster. ::::This kind of activity is explicitly prohibited by Wikipedia rules.


 * Conclusion: An appropriate remedy for this is for User:Ludvikus to commence an ANI against Loremaster and Arthur Rubin.
 * Therefore, I would like to discuss with you all who visit my Talk page what I ought to do about this predicament I find myself in.
 * I made a promise not to engage in Confrontation.
 * And I've been implicitly informed by another Administrator who I respect, that a Dialogue on my Talk page is a good place to work out differences.
 * So by all of the above, I'm at the moment - while being extremely disrupted in my work at Wikipedia - being an EXCELLENT Wikipedian, wouldn't you all agree?
 * If not, why not? If so, why so?
 * I look forward to resolving this extremely disruptive situation I'm in as a Wikipedian.
 * I really want Peace. But I do not know how to produce or get it with these two WP users; I have a great working relationship with everyone else, at the moment.
 * I'm even handling the situation with respect to historical revisionism in an excellent manner as a dedicated Wikipedia.
 * So please help me and thereby you will make Wikipedia a better Space to be in for editors who wish to contribute Content, and Technical editing as well.
 * Thanks to all of you who will help me get out of this situation in which I'm now cornered by the above only TWO individuals, WP editors, particularly by the Administrator whose clearly and obviously not exercising his special privileges entrusted to him by Wikipedia - that's clearly shown above - by his WP Editing and Administrative work.
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A code of conduct
"I am glad that you opened that dialogue with PBS.    Indeed, Wikipedia runs on open, polite, respectful communication that eventually leads to consensus.     Although you are currently under some restrictions from some articles, I hope that PBS has been able to advise you what you need to do in order to eventually have those restrictions lifted.     Feel free to watch the discussions on the pages that you have restrictions, and see how the conversation takes place - model your own interactions after the good discussions.     Work on a few other articles using those good interaction styles.     Show the Wikipedia community that you're a valuable and then valued contributor.     Show everyone that you follow the core policies.     After a period of time, check with PBS to see if you're doing better ... indeed, editor review is not a bad thing for you a couple of months from now. Actions always speak louder than words - show us how good of an editor - both by quality of edits AND quality of interactions - you can be."


 * Good code of conduct to follow for any Wikipedian who posts here. I intend to follow it everywhere in Wiki space. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be helpful if you would explain what you think that means, as your understanding of "consensus" is different than the, well WP:CONSENSUS understanding. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're mistaken here. I think it's best if you explain to me exactly where you believe I fail to understand. That would be extremely helpful to me. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * However, I can tell you about one point upon which I disagree with you. My reputation among the vast majority of Administrators is extremely poor. That's because of my "Wikicriminality" record. I'm labeled a "Disruptor" and a "Confronter." So you are absolutely mistaken when you say I should side with those who hold the better judgment, and discount the other less sound views. I'm paraphrasing what you've said above. But if that's what you are advising me, you are gravely uninformed as to the reality facing Editors who are not also Administrators. In my current predicament I must ALWAYS side with the Majority view - that's what I understand. And I do not wish to entrap you. I've actually contacted a long-standing, and respected Administrator who emphasized that I go with the Consensus. How you can advise me otherwise, is beyond my powers of comprehension. So please correct me if I misunderstood your advice. Tell me precisely what you mean by Consensus as I'm to follow it in my current "bad Wiki reputation predicament.
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: Dear User:Arthur Rubin, Since I've not heard back from you yet, I'm going now to read carefully your reference, WP:CONSENSUS, to see if I could read behind the lines of your general message. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't been editing much today, but it should be clear from reading WP:CONSENSUS that "majority" and "consensus" are independent determinations; in some circumstances, a supermajority is given as an indication of consensus, but a minority can indicate a consensus depending on the weight of the arguments.
 * Perhaps it would be better to follow 0RR* (if your edit is reverted, do not revert again unless you have some talk page support.) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Some would consider any pure revert of another editor's edit starting a "confrontation"; I wouldn't go that far, but reinstating and edit of yours that was reverted for a substantive reason would be "confrontation", whether the substantive reason is objectively justified, or not.
 * However, stating would you mean by "confrontation" above would be helpful. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll do my best to accommodate you. But I have some errands to attend to. Give me some time to respond. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's my response to your query: . If you wish to reply, please do so there. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:RM
1) There is a bot that generates all the entries onto WP:RM now, and what you would have put there no longer shows up. When entries are either too lengthy, or get run together by the bot, the sig is duplicated and the entry split up, or simply replaced with something to the effect of (see talk page). It may look odd on the talk page, but is necessary for WP:RM. 1)199.125.109.19 (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 2)That appears extremely informative. I'll study what you just said. Thanks a million! --Ludvikus (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 3)Looked into it. But I now realize that I have no idea what your talking about. Can you explain please? --Ludvikus (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 4)Maybe this will explain it better. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is what it looks like on the talk page:


 * New World Order → New world order — Comment. It's too confusing, and extremely burdensome to expect one to be able know that [a difference based on Caps]:
 * "New World Order" is the pejorative conspiracy theory while
 * "New world order" - or "New world order (politics)" - is the legitimate notion in politics, or international relations.
 * "New world order" should be the name of the DAB page (which it's not at the moment). --Ludvikus (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But this is how it ends up on WP:RM:


 * New World Order → New world order — Comment. It's too confusing, and extremely burdensome to expect one to be able know that [a difference based on Caps]::#"New World Order" is the pejorative conspiracy theory while:#"New world order" - or "New world order (politics)" - is the legitimate notion in politics, or international relations.:#"New world order" should be the name of the DAB page (which it's not at the moment). --Ludvikus (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a million. I'm still study the above, I will do my best to absorb what you've just directed me to. Also, I have other issues to attend to. In the mean time I'm following this rule: "Proceed with caution." But I'm still curious why you have this - all numbers - name. It made me think you were a novice who didn't know the rules. Is there a reason for you having this kind of name? --Ludvikus (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 5)I'll try to look into all that as soon as I get a chance. At least now I know which articles are of concern. My rough guess is - is that you're saying there's an inconsistency between two place. If that's so, I'll try to help to bring about conformity between the two WP:spaces. Have a nice day, talk - Hmmmmm. 1984, George Orwell. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll try my best to be helpful.
 * 1) I think the WP:Primary topic is New world order.
 * 2) True, as you maintain, there are many things called New World Order.
 * 3) There's also possible confusion, at least because when we "speak" Capital letters are not "heard." So NOTHING should follow from Capitalization practice as to how articles ought to be Titled.
 * 4) Therefore, the best thing to do is to have the DAB page titled New world order (disambiguation).
 * Both New world order and New World Order should be #Redirected to it,
 * and the rest should naturally fall into place.
 * Now if you would be kind enough to conform my position to the above ellaboration, or explication, of my position, I would be most grateful.
 * You are, of course, not expected to agree with me, if you do not believe my position does not conform to Wiki rules.
 * Thanks a million. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be completely missing the forest for the trees. My edit has nothing to do with the article or the name of the article, but is simply procedural about how WP:RM works. Up until recently you could post something onto WP:RM that you wanted people to discuss. No more. What you do is flag the talk page and a bot takes your post and puts it onto WP:RM. As a frequent maintainer of WP:RM, I look over all the listings to see that they are properly formatted and fix any that need fixing, so they will be listed properly. My edit of the talk page was simply so that your move request was properly formatted so that the bot could pick it up and put it onto WP:RM in a meaningful manner. The bot does not understand formatting *'s or #'s and runs all the sentences together until if finds a time stamp, in this case not the correct one. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I probably have.
 * And I certainly will study what you just taught me extremely carefully now, I can assure you of that.
 * However, It's my duty to inform you that if I missed seeing the forest for the trees it's completely your "fault" (a little guilt trip is good, or effective, sometime, don't you think?).
 * How "dare" you (I'm only using this word for dramatic effect - thing of me too as a possible "Bot" keep a name like "199.125.109.19".
 * Don't understand that the hard-working Human editors - who are unpaid - must be made to believe that your really also a human being?
 * On the other hand - perhaps your really just an insignificant novice who hasn't learned yet how to open an account with a human-sounding name? (Maybe I'm joking. But maybe not!). --Ludvikus (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: Food for thought. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was never calling or thinking of you as a bot. WP:RM listings (other than the uncontroversial ones) are now created by User:RFC_bot, and not by people posting them there. The bot takes what people write on the talk page and puts them there, unlike what was done up until very recently. Before the bot took over most of my time maintaining WP:RM was spent fixing formatting and closing them. Now most of my time is spent formatting for the bot. Over 80% of my edits by preference are as an IP user. That leaves over a thousand that are not, so I am neither an old timer, nor a new editor. The Requested moves/Closing instructions for WP:RM has a section on formatting requests. It's a little confusing now because that page used to be called "Moving guidelines for administrators", and the link was called "Administrator instructions", until someone pointed out that not only non-admins but even IP users can close move requests (but only if the result is "no move"). However, it includes more than just closing instructions. Perhaps it should be simply called "WP:RM/Maintenance instructions". WP:RM is exactly five years and two days old today. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops! Sorry for the "gilt trip." I was only joking. Apparently it was too strong a dose of medicine for you to swallow .... I goota go. Will explain more later. You did nothing wrong - I've only been trying to suggest that you get a better name for yourself than about three Social Security Numbers juxtaposed! --Ludvikus (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a million!!! Will study this complicated stuff - but slowly, and in bits. I'm extremely grateful that you pointed me to this stuff. I'd like to say that I'll never forget you - but I cannot remember that numerous numerological name you go by: 199.125.109.19|199.125.109.19 --Ludvikus (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning! "Big Brother is watching you"
Yes!!! --Ludvikus (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal Question

 * Ludvikus - when you read and write English, do you use a program such as Prompt to translate for you?

The reason for asking, is that the way you like to break up paragraphs into little bits is more understandable if the reason is that you are using a translation program. For people who can read English without a translation program, flowing paragraphs are easier to read.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not using any program. In fact, I'm a one-finger typist, right-handed. I never had the patience, in High School, to study typing. The way I write on Wikipedia is a method I invented when I started writing poetry on email and enjoyed sending same to the beautiful women I met. Unfortunately my Dancing communication skills far outperformed (and still do) in communication my messages. However, I find my style is far more readable than the culture we know have. My inspiration are (a) George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, (b) Ludwig Wittgenstein in general, (c) Marshall McLuhan and his The Medium is the Message, (d) Andy Warhol's works of art. (Hope this style helps you in reading what I wrote in a style especially for you!). --Ludvikus (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried experimenting with Category:WikiLove templates? Maybe for when dealing with PBS, the angel heart one would be useful, and for the guy who made the seaweed remark, maybe the humorous pork pie.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear User:Toddy1, I remember well you being upset by the "bullying" that takes on that ANI noticeboard. I know what you mean. So don't forget that the moment you showed me just a drop of WP:WikiLove, I asked immediately that the ANI be closed. But for some it's extremely difficult to forgive. And don't forget that sadomasochism also exists in the world. Don't you think that this is an ideal environment for that sort of stuff? Also, remember this, bullies are basically cowards. So they do what the do do (Mel Brooks, his Vampire movie) in gangs. That should tell you how to protect Wikipedia from them. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Reg: User:Gaunkars of Goa

 * No you haven't accused me yet.
 * You have made a suggestion of accusation,
 * which is basically an accusation without any substance to back it up,
 * giving the accuser a backdoor to run away when he cannot prove the accusation.
 * And let me point that everybody on Wikipedia considers themselves to be neutral,
 * even convicted POV-pushers.
 * I'm not surprised too, that you have made a "suggestion of accusation" that I have brought nationalist battle to Wikipedia.
 * I am used to editors from the West thinking that they are neutral whereas everyone else is biased.
 * Nor am I surprised that you have been accused of disruptive behaviour.
 * I guess that is why you are sympathetic to GoG.
 * You probably see him as (like yoursef) a victim of an unfair disruption charge.
 * Which, IMHO puts a big question mark on your claim that you are neutral in this dispute.
 * Its no surprise that an admin told you that you don't know how Wikipedia works.
 * I avoided saying that the last time, out of politeness.
 * For someone who's been here for more than three years you haven't even learned to use the preview button,
 * as is evident from your multiple, self-correcting edits.
 * You have offered to teach GoG how to "avoid being blocked" instead of offering to teach him "how to become a good editor".
 * Which again puts a big question on your mentoring abilities.
 * Regarding your "suggestion of accusation" that I am involved in a content dispute,
 * have you bothered to see if any other editor agrees with his points?
 * Even better why don't you verify for yourself GoGs claims.
 * Or would your rather satisfy yourself with suggestions of accusation?
 * If you feel that I have not acted within the rules of Wikipedia,
 * do make an RfC or request administrative intervention against me.
 * But not before you have checked the facts for yourself.
 * --Deepak D'Souza 04:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But not before you have checked the facts for yourself.
 * --Deepak D'Souza 04:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please calm down!
 * You're obviously extremely upset.
 * If I made some mistake, I will definitely acknowledge it.
 * There is no "emergency."
 * I want us all to get along.
 * The fact is you've now turned on me and are engaging in a Personal Attack on me.
 * First of all are you the Blocking Administrator who said that User:Gaunkars of Goa "smells of rotten sea weed"?
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Otherwise, OK, let's rumble = (slang) A street fight or brawl.!!!


 * No dear.
 * You are the one who is upset.
 * Because you haven't been able to prove anything you have said.
 * And by pointing this image of a boxer and asking me if I would engage in a fight with you, aren't you threatening me with a fistfight?
 * So much for your talk of not being provoked easily and of good faith.
 * And can you please remind me where I have said that GoG "smells of rotten sea weed" Remember you need proof before you make any accusations.
 * --Deepak D'Souza 05:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That picture on the right is a joke. Too bad you didn't understand it as such.
 * Question (for the second time): Are you the Blocking Administrator who said that User:Gaunkars of Goa "smells of rotten sea weed"?
 * Possible answer 1: is YES.
 * Possible answer 2: is NO.
 * The other possibilities for an answer: Break up the question into two parts, and answer each part separately.
 * I'm looking forward to your response.
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 05:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: Here's the Diff regarding "smells of rotten sea weed": . --Ludvikus (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Man ,you are amazing! Do you see my signature anywhere on that page? And where does Gaunkaar's name figure on that page? Then what was your basis for claiming that I said "smells of rotten sea weed"? --Deepak D'Souza 10:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your responses here, (1) failure to answer my simple questions my two questions after, after I've asked the twice, and (2) your Personal attacks on me, criticism of my WP technical skills, sarcasm, study of my past record regarding whether I was disruptive, etc., indicates that it's pointless at this time to answer your questions, so I'll simply ignore you until you address me in a civil, non-confrontational, non-provovative, and non-disruptive manner. --11:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Deepak D'Souza ??? -- Correction: --Ludvikus (talk) 04:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The diff is on User talk:LessHeard vanU, not the talk page of User:Deepak D'Souza. The section starts as a critisism of the wording placed in the block log by User:LessHeard vanU when blocking User:69.159.84.182. Are you sure that Deepak D'Souza also wrote those words? -- PBS (talk) 08:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a million!!! User:Philip Baird Shearer, a.k.a. PBS. Appreciate extremely your helpfulness. As you can see from the above, I certainly am not sure regarding the question you raise. However, I'm now sure about one thing for sure: if User:Deepak D'Souza had ANY say in Gaunker of Goa's being Blocked, or Banned, the Ban or Block should be immediately Rescinded. That I'm sure of now 100%. I hope this Helps us all to make Wikipedia a better place. I suggest that Deepak D'Souza be Blocked for 24 hours for failure to assist us all in determining whether or not the above user should be Blocked. Thanks again for helping me identify the issue. Have a nice day (as a friendly aside, I do look forward eventually to editing the nine [9] historical revisionism articles, but you can be sure I'll be extremely careful in not appearing to violate ANY WP rule, even by mistake - I'll be extremely cautious). --Ludvikus (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: The Blocked user herein [of Goa] had multiple IP accounts, as well as multiple Blocks or Unblock histories, as I understand it, so I was trying to trace those. In addition, there was discussion exactly where you found it. But I didn't bother to go into great detail, because I was already quite convinced that opponent Deepak D'Souza himself did not come into this WP Battle with clean hands. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, I did not study your past records (not that it is not allowed), but you yourself declared  that you had been called disruptive in the past without anyone having asked you to do so. Why then do you complain that I have researched your past. If you feel I have made any personal attacks , please report it to the administrators. Of course first make sure you have the right diffs unlike your "rotten seaweed" thing up above. If you make a charge against another person it is your duty to prove the charge; dont ask them to prove that they haven't done what they are charged with. You are charging me with sarcasm and disruptive behaviour. IMHO you have indulged in veiled treats with your not-at-all-funny boxing joke in which you have accused me of wanting a fistfight. And your request that I should be blocked because I do not agree to unblocking a blocked user is weird. --Deepak D'Souza 12:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Answers & Questions:
 * (1) I did not "imitate" your "signature." You are required to WP:Assume good faith. ..... Ludvikus (talk) 04:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) I did not "imitate" your "signature." You are required to WP:Assume good faith. ..... Ludvikus (talk) 04:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (2) What's the relevance of a third party's past alleged disruptiveness to whether or not User:Gaunkars of Goa is capable of being a good Wikipedian? ..... Ludvikus (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What purpose is there in your raising that issue when the third party editor tells you he's WP:Neutral? ..... Ludvikus (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's no different than asking: "How many times do you beat your wife?" - don't you agree? ..... Ludvikus (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussing an editor's past alleged disruptiveness where the issue is irrelevant is a WP:Personal attack and extremely WP:Disruptive - don't you agree? ..... Ludvikus (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (3) You say above: "If you feel I have made any personal attacks, please report it to the administrators." OK, I will. ..... Ludvikus (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (4) You say above: "Of course first make sure you have the right diffs ..." OK, I will. ..... Ludvikus (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (5) You say above: "If you make a charge against another person it is your duty to prove the charge." That's true. ..... Ludvikus (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (6) You say above: "don't ask them to prove that they haven't done what they are charged with." OK, I wont. ..... Ludvikus (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (7) You say above: "You are charging me with sarcasm and disruptive behaviour." Yes I am. ..... Ludvikus (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (8) You say above: "In My Humble/Honest Opinion" [=IMHO] "have indulged in veiled treats with your not-at-all-funny boxing joke in which you have accused me of wanting a fistfight."
 * (a) This is certainly not a display of a humble honest opinion. I'd describe it as a provocative, confrontational, and disruptive choice of words.
 * (b) There is nothing "veiled" about what I've said.
 * (c) I've made no threats.
 * (d) You obviously were, and still are, in a "fight" with me.
 * (e) I'm sorry I wasn't able to make you laugh.
 * (f) I'm not "accusing" you, I'm stating an obvious fact.
 * (g) The fact is that we are in a "fistfight", speaking metaphorically.


 * (9) You say above: ''"And your request that I should be blocked because I do not agree to unblocking a blocked user is weird."
 * I don't now if "weird" is the word I would use.
 * But since you got my request completely wrong,
 * the issue you raise is purely academic, the characterization false, and the point irrelevant. ..... Ludvikus (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

PS1: Because the image of the boxer disturbs you, and because you did not appreciate my joke, allusion, and metaphor meant to imply that Wikipedia is a space in which we do battle, and engage the the war of ideas of ideas I do apologize to you, ask for your forgiveness - and I am immediately deleting or removing said image of Bare-knuckle boxer John Lawrence Sullivan. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For the moment, I will keep everthing else aside and focus on your apology. You apology leads me to beleive that you honestly meant it as a joke; not as a threat. I'm sorry for having misunderstood it and taking it as a threat. Peace. --Deepak D'Souza 05:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 0 Great. Let's keep talking. I respect the fact that you are able to apologize to me. Too few human beings are able to do that. I apologize to you too for upsetting you by that image. I just meant that we fight here with words. No wonder there's no Peace in the real word. What I would like ery much is for us both to have a civil discussions in the future. I know nothing about Goa. Regarding India, I have great respect for its great and ancient Civilization - especially since it gave us Nothing, Zero !
 * Looking forward to your reply. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: At Wikipedia there's too often a battle of words, instead of ideas. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

.
I understand now 100% how to avoid [being blocked] - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor. Do those words sound familiar, Ludvikus? Now, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. — Malik Shabazz 22:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, User:Malik Shabazz, the editor who was substantially involved in my getting Blocked for two (2)! Welcome to my Talk page. What can I do for you? What's the relevance of your remark about? Are you trying to provoke me into a Confrontation with you? You tell me what you think the right response to your remark above should be? What is it that you want from me? And what, if anything, do you know about the subject of this discourse, in which you've just interjected yourself? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I merely try my best to stay neutral in my edits. I do this by following the policies and guidelines.  When you edited other users' comments, it appeared to me as though you had a misunderstanding of the talkpage guidelines, so I put a cordial note on your talkpage.  There's nothing wrong with misunderstanding or being uninformed on guidelines.  After all, there are a lot of them, and it's better for the project if users be BOLD rather than walk on eggshells over this stuff.
 * I didn't mean to imply that you didn't understand that users don't own articles, I meant to imply that users do own their comments. Other users' comments shouldn't be changed in ways that might be against that user's wishes.  I have no problem assuming good faith here; perhaps you didn't realize that anyone would find fault with such a simple edit as adding some numbers.  That's fine. Again, I simply left you a note to communicate, "yes, people here do mind such things."
 * I'm not going to touch whatever issues you may have with Arthur. You shouldn't be concerned about being blocked so long as you continue to try to discuss edits, and not the editor, and you follow proper dispute resolution. -Verdatum (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much User:Verdatum. I appreciate and accept your explanation. And I hope to mlearn from it. But now let me tell you the reality of how life really is here at Wikipedia regarding my person. Above is the unsolicited interjection of "Don't be a dick" User:Malik Shabazz. He's the editor who substantially caused me to be Blocked for two years. When I came back after exiled for two years and made a mistake regarding an alleged, unintended POV Fork regarding historical revisionism articles, and was Restricted, this WP:Hounding, User:Malik Shabazz, voted for the Restricting, announcing his knowledge about how I would behave. Now this "Don't be a Dick" is back. Can you please advise me what the right thing for me to do, in the light of the fact that I promised not to engage in a Confrontation with any editor? What purpose has he in interjecting himself about a conversation between you and me? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ludvikus, please take a look in the mirror. The only person to blame for getting you blocked for two years is ... you. It was your disruptive behavior, on dozens of pages, that earned you a block—your third lengthy involuntary vacation from Wikipedia, I might add. Please stop making pretend it was my fault. If you're honest with yourself, deep down you know it wasn't.
 * Evidently you were lying when you asked to be unblocked, because you've been involved in one confrontation after another. If you continue down this road, I promise you that I'll bring the matter to AN/I.
 * Finally, please read Don't be a dick. Calling another user a dick means that you, too, are a dick. — Malik Shabazz 05:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Go away! Stop WP:Hounding me. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Feature article review
nominated The Protocols of the Elders of Zion for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Notifying you since you are the top editor by edit count. -Verdatum (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Great User:Verdatum. But it still needs some work, fine-tuning. For example: I own a photocopy of the typescript which was circulated in 1919, in the United States in government circles. Legally, it means it was "published." But if you consider a typescript to be merely a manuscript, the it was published in book form a year later, in 1920.
 * PS1: I'm pleased that you've notice that article. I'm also pleased by experiencing now the unique pleasure of meeting a particularly intelligent Wikipedian - you.
 * PS2: Thought I'd mention that I glanced at your own external quasi-Wikipedian Web cite. Might ask you about it sometime later.
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid editing other people's comments as you did here. It goes against WP:TALK. -Verdatum (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a single word was changed! I simply followed: WP:Refactoring for readability. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To quote, "Previously, summarizing to condense a talk page was a non-conservative refactoring method. Especially since 2006, the Wikipedia community has more and more preferred wholesale archival of talk page discussions instead of summarizing, as archival preserves a fuller record of discussion, does not lead to accidental (or disruptive) misrepresentation of other editors' opinions, and does not inadvertently remove material that may turn out to be needed later."


 * The only thing refactoring discusses is "poor formatting". Just because comments aren't enumerated in a way you like doesn't mean they may be reformatted. -Verdatum (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the enumeration is a change, and some might call it significant. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're entitled to your opinion. I say that enumeration not significant. As you say, "some" might call it significant. But most might not. The one who counts in this is Verdatum. And I would like to here him on that. Anyway, I did it in WP:Good faith. I don't know you you're budding in into a matter that concerns Verdatum. I will apologize to him if he objects. It can be easily remedied by posting his original block. Anyway, I will not do it to him or you in the future since you might not like it. But you must agree, 100% that my version is far better!!! And that's what counts. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)




 * "better" counts for articles, not for discussions. When you add content to an article, you don't own it, others can edit it freely.  When you make a comment, the comment is yours.  When you modify someone else's comment, you are changing it's tone to something the user may have not intended.  I know you meant no harm in your edit; and I chose not to revert it because your replies count on that enumeration, so your replies would no longer make as much sense.  Plus it didn't bother me much, I was just giving you some advice.  Guidelines for editing others' comments may be found at WP:TPOC.  In this usage, the concept of refactoring is a subset of editing. -Verdatum (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But Verdatum, we only talking about the enumeration of your proposal made in that Talk article. Why are you switching to a discussion of ownership of Content articles? What does ownership of articles have to do with anything? I certainly appreciate your advice. But I hope you realize that, as I believe, Arthur Rubin is an Administrator and he's here merely fishing for an excuse to get me Blocked from Wikipedia. I have no reason to believe in his Good faith anymore - especially since he's done nothing to put Loremaster in his place. And since he (Arthur) cannot find anything against me, he's here complaining about my "enumeration." But what counts for me is having a good working relation with you, Verdatum. So tell why you're flip-flopping on me. What's the beef? Where do you get the idea that someone thinks he owns an Article? I KNOW! You're confusing me with Loremaster, who owns New World Order (conspiracy theory). You realize that now, of course? Please let me know. And if I care about anyone - it's you. But are you afraid to be my Wiki Colleague because - let's say no one else is? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: Here's the essence of the rule you cite: "Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." I neither struck nor deleted any comment of yours. But I'll keep in mind your sensitivities in the future (if there is a future). --Ludvikus (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment 1:: India gave the world Zero. Zero is at the core of the Hindu-Arabic numerals. The Arabs took it from the Hindus and brought it to the West --Ludvikus (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment 2:: The image to the right or above is that of the Indian Mathematical Genius: Srinivasa Ramanujan.